Portal 2 PC User Review Backlash

I am an admitted Valve fanboy. I've loved most anything they've done and have defended them for eons.

....Console ports, however, crosses the line. The Mann Co. store is also something that needs to go, as its one of the main reasons TF2 is gone in a huge slum for me and plenty of other people. Moreso then the store is again, the idea of Valve, one of the last great PC devs, putting out a fucking *console port* of its most hyped game yet. This is the beginning of a very disturbing trend, and we should NOT defend it, we should in fact be vocal, so as Valve does not go the way of Epic and Crytek: former PC devs who turned their back on their core fanbase in order to earn a quick buck on consoles by exploiting the lowest common denominator.

+100
 
Who are these people that buy day 1 launches and/or pre-order? I can't remember the last time I purchased a game over $3 that I didn't check metascore or read a review on first.

Personally, I wait 6 - 12 months until the prices come down reasonably. I'm willing to spend ~$30 for a title that I want to play, ~$10-20 for a title that looks like some fun, but may be short, an older game, or otherwise flawed somehow.

That being said, I can see pre-ordering if you were going to buy the game at launch. Typically pre-orders get a measurable discount over the launch price.
 
After tax I paid $17 for it at Best Buy thanks to their pre-order bonuses. It was worth it for $17, I'm working on coop with a friend now.
 
It was an okay game. I was expecting more puzzles to escape, not somehow land into some old 40s test chambers. I prefer Crysis 2 over Portal 2.
 
portal 2 was a pretty good game, a little overpriced @ $45 - $50 (should have been at the most $35 @ preorder, $40 at launch), a little too short for such a highly anticipated game (took me about 9 - 10 hours, i would have liked at least double or maybe even triple that), game looked gorgeous but valve definitely needs to develop a newer game engine, and it was funny as hell (i found myself laughing at jokes throughout the whole game)...

it's really hard to beat "still alive" as the ending song, it's just too catchy!!!
 
I noticed the fail at the beginning when it was $50.

Last time I paid $50, it came with Team Fortress 2, Portal, Half Life 2, Half Life 2: Episode 1 and Half Life 2: Episode 2.

But i'll still buy portal 2......when its $5.

Same here. Its way over priced for the content at $50. Even $30. But at $20 or less, im in.
 
Love the game so far. I beat the single player in what steam says was 5 hours, but was actually around 8-9. Plus did a stint at the single player. LOTS of fun.

My only gripe is the sheer number of loading screens. Maybe I am getting spoiled by games like Crysis 2 and other modern FPS games, but mid-level loading screens are not acceptable for me any more. It's probably a limitation of the Source engine.

Given the quality of the game, and the new-found eating disorder I have acquired (Thanks, GladOS) I am more than willing to forgive them.
 
This "OMGz!! cONSOL PORT!!!111!!" is starting to look like the Salem witch hunts. Every game can't go multi-platform without people shitting all over the PC version. Can't wait til Battlefield 3, RAGE and Elder Scrolls 5 come out...that should be rich.

I think the reason is that people are so pissed off at seeing past games ruined by considerations for consoles, that they get pissed off at any hint of console involvement at all.

This game was certainly not a console port. It's more like the Console version was a PC port, but I don't think that matters at all anymore.

In the PC games market today, if a developer even thinks of going cross platform or releasing a game for the console, regardless of which platform it was first developed for, they are going to fume with anger that consoles were involved at all.

It may not even be relevant for a particular title, but people are so pissed off about consoles and their impact that even the mention of the word console is going to piss people off as it brings up bad memories, anger and resentment.

PC gamers today want games designed EXCLUSIVELY for PC's with no plan to ever port to any other platform (except possibly Mac's, no one seems to care about Mac ports). They want these games to be designed from scratch on new from scratch engines designed from the bottom up to take advantage of the latest PC hardware (including DX11) and designed from the bottom up for a mouse and a keyboard.

Even the slightest hint of console taints the entire image of the game. Maybe they went a little bit easier on the graphics than they could of, because of consoles. Maybe the mouse and keyboard interface isn't as perfect as it could have been as they designed it also with a controller in mind, etc. etc.

As far as PC gamers are concerned today, consoles are the enemy and they prefer their game developers to have no relationship with anything console what so ever.
 
Yes, lets give the developers a reason not to make PC games. Port or not.
 
I got Assassin's Creed Brotherhood recently and was pissed to find out that it will ONLY display in a 16:9 AR. So on my 1920x1200 monitor it has black bars... ridiculous. :mad:
 
Also, the fact that Valve is still using the same 7-odd-year old engine shouldn't surprise anyone that this was a console port. Since L4D, Valve has become just another dev that pushes out games.

This I disagree with. The source engine may have been around for a while, but with was designed from the base up to be modular so that it can adapt and grow as needed. As such it is different from other engines on the market, and doesn't need to be rewritten from the ground up every couple of years. When one of it's modules needs something new, they just update that module.

Right now, the only modern feature I can think of that the latest version of the source engine lacks is DX11, and there is nothing stopping them from recoding the graphics output module to include this at any point.

This is rumored to be done in an upcoming "Source Engine 2" (to be co-launched with HL3 in 2011, but Valve has been very quiet on this so we'll see).

The 2 in "Source Engine 2" here is misleading, since Valve takes a evolutionary upgrade approach to the source engine, my guess that if there is a "Source Engine 2" the 2 is more for marketing purposes than anything else, to help those who don't get the modular approach.
 
Oh noes. It's a console port? Fine, I'm not gonna finish the game!

Come on. The game's awesome, I can't see the big deal about a localization string. Less time complaining, more time gaming, pls.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037147548 said:
If I had to choose, I'd rather have no games at all, than games either ported from a console, or designed to be multiplatform.

Then why are you here talking? Like 90% of games are ports or multiplat. I personally don't care. As long as the game looks decent, plays decent, and is fun, then that's all that really matters.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037147548 said:
If I had to choose, I'd rather have no games at all, than games either ported from a console, or designed to be multiplatform.

That makes no sense.

None whatsoever.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037147495 said:
PC gamers today want games designed EXCLUSIVELY for PC's with no plan to ever port to any other platform (except possibly Mac's, no one seems to care about Mac ports). They want these games to be designed from scratch on new from scratch engines designed from the bottom up to take advantage of the latest PC hardware (including DX11) and designed from the bottom up for a mouse and a keyboard.

Which really speaks to the frankly unreasonable nature of most PC gamers. They want games that are of higher quality than the games available on consoles, but they want developers to be okay making a small portion of the money.

Does not compute. Big budget PC exclusives are all but dead. Only IPs with large existing fanbases can pull that off. PC exclusives overall are going to be pretty dead soon enough. Even the kind of casual indie games are becoming easier to distribute on consoles.

People can keep nerd raging for eternity, but the ship has sailed. PC gaming isn't dead, but it's never going to be what these people want it to be. Ever.
 
when was that exactly? PC games have always been notoriously short save RPGs back in the day.

Well...

I remember games having more hours to them than they do today. When I first played through Half Life (the first one in 1998) I recall it being an enveloping game that lasted for a long time.

I think it took me 40+ hours to get through it.

I recently replayed it about 6 months ago, and I blasted through it in what seemed like no time, and I'm trying to explain whey I think this is...

1.) Maybe I've just gotten better at FPS's over time

2.) Maybe I played it on a much harder difficulty level than the default one the first tiem around.

3.) Maybe the fact that I was still on a Pentium 150 (pre-MMX, overclocked to 200Mhz) with a 6Mb Voodoo1 board at the time made the game run at lower frame rates than we are used to today, thus making it more difficult...

I can't explain it, but thats the truth.

That being said, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series all lasted me a decent amount of time:

Shadow of Chernobyl: 50.5 Hours (partially due to Priboi mod)
Clear Sky: 22.8 hours
Call of Pripyat: 39.6 Hours

At the end, in each of these I still wanted more. and never got tired of them.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037147543 said:
This I disagree with. The source engine may have been around for a while, but with was designed from the base up to be modular so that it can adapt and grow as needed. As such it is different from other engines on the market, and doesn't need to be rewritten from the ground up every couple of years. When one of it's modules needs something new, they just update that module.

Right now, the only modern feature I can think of that the latest version of the source engine lacks is DX11, and there is nothing stopping them from recoding the graphics output module to include this at any point.

This is rumored to be done in an upcoming "Source Engine 2" (to be co-launched with HL3 in 2011, but Valve has been very quiet on this so we'll see).

The 2 in "Source Engine 2" here is misleading, since Valve takes a evolutionary upgrade approach to the source engine, my guess that if there is a "Source Engine 2" the 2 is more for marketing purposes than anything else, to help those who don't get the modular approach.

+1 Indeed the modular approach that Valve has taken should allow for DX11 module, and various others.

Zarathustra[H];1037147495 said:
I think the reason is that people are so pissed off at seeing past games ruined by considerations for consoles, that they get pissed off at any hint of console involvement at all.

This game was certainly not a console port. It's more like the Console version was a PC port, but I don't think that matters at all anymore.

In the PC games market today, if a developer even thinks of going cross platform or releasing a game for the console, regardless of which platform it was first developed for, they are going to fume with anger that consoles were involved at all.

It may not even be relevant for a particular title, but people are so pissed off about consoles and their impact that even the mention of the word console is going to piss people off as it brings up bad memories, anger and resentment.

PC gamers today want games designed EXCLUSIVELY for PC's with no plan to ever port to any other platform (except possibly Mac's, no one seems to care about Mac ports). They want these games to be designed from scratch on new from scratch engines designed from the bottom up to take advantage of the latest PC hardware (including DX11) and designed from the bottom up for a mouse and a keyboard.

Even the slightest hint of console taints the entire image of the game. Maybe they went a little bit easier on the graphics than they could of, because of consoles. Maybe the mouse and keyboard interface isn't as perfect as it could have been as they designed it also with a controller in mind, etc. etc.

As far as PC gamers are concerned today, consoles are the enemy and they prefer their game developers to have no relationship with anything console what so ever.

There definitely is a hint of this. I have consoles, but they are for the kids and the wife. Though I am starting to get my 11 yr old more involved with PC gaming. It looks better, plays better, and is more enjoyable to me. Consoles aren't the enemy, just the annoying cousin you hate running into during the holidays.

Zarathustra[H];1037147548 said:
If I had to choose, I'd rather have no games at all, than games either ported from a console, or designed to be multiplatform.

Yeah, this one is epic "winning." :rolleyes:
 
Ugh, again, the PC version of P2 is not a port.

If the game was a port, it would be impossible for the game to look better on PC than it does on either console version. That is not the case.

The game looks better on PC especially when you crank everything. I'm running @ max everything which I believe is 16x CSAA and 8x AF. The textures look a lot better on the PC version. They look great on the Ps3 but they look even better on the PC.

People have their panties in a bunch over a sentence and are writing the game off because of that + the option to buy hats because they're lazy instead of unlocking them. Wow. Have fun with that...you're missing one of the best games that's come out over the last few years if not ever.
 
8 hours single player with 4 hours of co-op. If you're not an idiot, you're also bound to replay single player but with the developers' comments. That's 20 hours of entertainment.

People are whining it's not a 40 hour single player, but I rather laugh, and solve puzzles for 8 hours than to collect 4 innards from buzzards, 2 dragon balls, and 8 viper fangs for a potion for 40 hours.

Very much worth admission price. Specially if you pre-ordered for 10% discount.

There was a ton of discounts for this game at release. I paid $45 - $10 GC from BB for the PS3 version. This includes a PC copy so I'll likely be able to resell it for close to $30 making this a very good deal. Hell, $35 is a good deal not even considering you're getting it on 2 platforms.
 
When Portal was part of the orange box, it was a simple dinky puzzle game meant to entertain you for a little bit. It had some novelties and a very popular joke song at the end. Not a standalone game which is why it was bundled with some very hyped up games.

Portal 2 = bulked up in every respect...an SP campaign which is at least 3x longer, much more voice acting and plot development with a coherent and highly entertaining story...lots of attention to detail. The puzzles are more challenging with many more types of puzzle elements and in general much larger puzzle chambers.

And Co-Op mode. So yea I wish games were longer, but Portal 2 added enough to be considered a standalone game...and it was one of the few games that I felt lived up to the hype.

I only hate console ports when they play like crap on a PC. In this particular case, Portal 2 played perfectly fine...so console port or not...there is really nothing to complain about.
 
Off the top of my head: JC2, Borderlands, GTA4, PvZ, Darksiders, Disciples 2, STALKER.

PvZ's main story mode is not 10+ hours, more like 1/2 that.
If you want to try to do some of the challenges, yeah, you'll get a few more hours out of it (if you can actually beat them). I think I've done most of them and then I gave up because it was getting ridiculous.

Borderlands I want to say "no I didn't spend 10+ on it" but I probably did. Doesn't feel like it, but it's possible. Darksiders I haven't finished, the others I haven't played yet (but do own all of them except Disciples 2).

Zarathustra[H];1037145073 said:
I just haven't seen a single game released since ~September of 2010 (when I last bought a game) that I think would be worth playing even if it were free...

I hope you got Portal free then when they gave it away; if you didn't then you're missing out. If you don't have it and you haven't played it, you're really missing out. Don't skip the game just based off the length (if that's why you've skipped it)....the game is brilliant. P2 (so far) has been even more brilliant. :)
 
Then why are you here talking? Like 90% of games are ports or multiplat. I personally don't care. As long as the game looks decent, plays decent, and is fun, then that's all that really matters.

Well, that's exactly the problem.

I have yet to see a multiplatform game or console game that I found fun to play.

I am open to being pleasantly surprised (that's why I bought Metro 2033, only to be disappointed) but most of these games are just dumb.

I never played the original Portal though, maybe I'll give it a try, and if I like it, get Portal 2. Portal 2 may just be the first multiplatform game that I can enjoy.
 
I don't see why there is such a fuss, as a programmer I know that something as simple and stupid as this can VERY easily be overlooked. ESPECIALLY in late stages of development/QA where you are just trying to crank out every fix possible you overlook something as stupid as a small string that says that it's saving.

The press start button is far worse though IMO mainly because it is forcing user interaction therefore someone HAD to see it in order to know to do something rather than a passive saving message.

Yes Valve has gone extra happy with accessories. I don't see this as a problem as it's not like there are any additional content. and it's just the pointless TF2 hats. If people want to throw away their money on this god bless Valve for making more money to give us more grade AAA games! now if there was 0 day actual content I would frown upon that but i see no wrong doing in Portal 2.

And with the length of the game/price issue - it's not the length the journey. I would rather spend $50 playing a game which I was completely in love with and is only 5 hours long, than spend $50 on a game that is 500 hours long and I hate it.
 
There definitely is a hint of this. I have consoles, but they are for the kids and the wife. Though I am starting to get my 11 yr old more involved with PC gaming.

Been doing the same thing myself. Built a rig for my stepson recently which he enjoyed. While he sees what I am saying about the PC performing better, he keeps getting pulled back to the console to play games because all of his friends are on the console, and he doesn't want to play with strangers.

The masses keep dragging us down...

Yeah, this one is epic "winning." :rolleyes:

I guess I should explain myself a little.

I have yet to come across a multiplatform or console port game I enjoyed playing, and it has nothing to do with the inferior graphics (I can put up with this, I play older games). The games just feel dumbed down, with less compelling story lines, and less complexity.

Because of this, I simply don't play them. So to me it really doesn't matter if the multiplatform games and console ports exist or not. I just don't buy them and don't play them anyway.

I would rather play nothing that stoop to the level of playing anything in the Modern Warfare, Call of Duty or Halo series... These games are just too dumb and uninteresting.
 
PvZ's main story mode is not 10+ hours, more like 1/2 that.
If you want to try to do some of the challenges, yeah, you'll get a few more hours out of it (if you can actually beat them). I think I've done most of them and then I gave up because it was getting ridiculous.

Borderlands I want to say "no I didn't spend 10+ on it" but I probably did. Doesn't feel like it, but it's possible. Darksiders I haven't finished, the others I haven't played yet (but do own all of them except Disciples 2).

I've played through PvZ's story mode multiple times. The challenges are possible; I just got the golden trophy the other day :cool: . Either way, PvZ's "story" mode lasts about as long as Portal 2's, was less than half the price at release (I waited until it was $5), all the while being just as enjoyable. That makes it a better value to me. Portal 2 will be a good value for me when it's $20ish. It's probably Valve's fault that I've become such a miser; I don't buy any games that aren't on sale now :p .

I have over 60 hours in Borderlands (all single-player) divided between my four characters and two of them aren't but a couple of hours in.
 
I don't see why there is such a fuss, as a programmer I know that something as simple and stupid as this can VERY easily be overlooked. ESPECIALLY in late stages of development/QA where you are just trying to crank out every fix possible you overlook something as stupid as a small string that says that it's saving.

The press start button is far worse though IMO mainly because it is forcing user interaction therefore someone HAD to see it in order to know to do something rather than a passive saving message.

Yes Valve has gone extra happy with accessories. I don't see this as a problem as it's not like there are any additional content. and it's just the pointless TF2 hats. If people want to throw away their money on this god bless Valve for making more money to give us more grade AAA games! now if there was 0 day actual content I would frown upon that but i see no wrong doing in Portal 2.

And with the length of the game/price issue - it's not the length the journey. I would rather spend $50 playing a game which I was completely in love with and is only 5 hours long, than spend $50 on a game that is 500 hours long and I hate it.

Again - at least to me - the existence of the text string is utterly irrelevant. its the fact that the game was developed to appeal to the console crowd that is the real problem.

I have yet to play Portal 2, so I don't know if this is an issue with it, but in my experience, games targeted at console players are less sophisticated. They have less "brainy" stuff in them. There is less character development and story, and there is less complexity and strategy required. It's usually just a bunch of cheap action thrills, reminiscent of the bad old days of Quake and Doom before Half Life and Deus Ex came along (not to mention Counter-Strike) and changed things up for the better.

To put it in software terms, the User Requirements are different for a game intended for a console than for a PC, and when these user requirements are followed as part of game development, it results in a game that is less fulfilling, less stimulating and less challenging, and aimed at (regardless of what age rating is on the box) the 8 year old boy crowd.

I'm guessing Portal 2 is not like this, as it was primarily developed for the PC and ported to the console, and the principle of the game is very un-console like, but as soon as a development team - early on in game development - starts thinking about even the potential of eventually releasing a game on the console, it has an irreparable impact on the game further down the development pipeline, resulting in a less interesting game. This does not even include the fact that we know the graphics are going to suck compared to what a PC is capable of.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037148099 said:
Been doing the same thing myself. Built a rig for my stepson recently which he enjoyed. While he sees what I am saying about the PC performing better, he keeps getting pulled back to the console to play games because all of his friends are on the console, and he doesn't want to play with strangers.

The masses keep dragging us down...



I guess I should explain myself a little.

I have yet to come across a multiplatform or console port game I enjoyed playing, and it has nothing to do with the inferior graphics (I can put up with this, I play older games). The games just feel dumbed down, with less compelling story lines, and less complexity.

Because of this, I simply don't play them. So to me it really doesn't matter if the multiplatform games and console ports exist or not. I just don't buy them and don't play them anyway.

I would rather play nothing that stoop to the level of playing anything in the Modern Warfare, Call of Duty or Halo series... These games are just too dumb and uninteresting.

Ok, that makes more sense to me now. I don't necessarily agree with you but point taken nonetheless.
 
this game is smart, fun, and mind blowing all at the same time.

well worth the $35 I paid on amazon to get it on release day.

anyone calling it a console port is (A) a troll and (B) hasn't played it. the menus are the same as L4D2, the settings are the same as every Valve game. The only valid criticism as far as how the game is made is that Valve is still using an old ass engine. That being said, the engine still looks great.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037148132 said:
I have yet to play Portal 2, so I don't know if this is an issue with it, but in my experience, games targeted at console players are less sophisticated....the fact that [Portal 2] was developed to appeal to the console crowd that is the real problem.
I cut up and re-ordered two sentences in your post without changing the overall meaning. Read the above and ask yourself if it makes any sense whatsoever.
 
I noticed the fail at the beginning when it was $50.

Last time I paid $50, it came with Team Fortress 2, Portal, Half Life 2, Half Life 2: Episode 1 and Half Life 2: Episode 2.

But i'll still buy portal 2......when its $5.
\

While true, the problem with that is last time, portal 1 took maybe 2 hours to beat. This time around it's 6-8 hours give or take.
 
Which really speaks to the frankly unreasonable nature of most PC gamers. They want games that are of higher quality than the games available on consoles, but they want developers to be okay making a small portion of the money.

Let's call a spade a spade. PC can be unreasonable, whiny, needy bitches.

6-8 hour SP? Fine. I'm not buying it until it's below $20, but from the sounds of things it's going to be a very fun 6-8 hours. Just like Portal 1.

I can live with console messages and a little console look and feel, as long as it's not over-the-top bad. (I'm looking at you, Batman:AA. And in the end I'll probably just get a 360 controller and enjoy it anyways.)
 
I cut up and re-ordered two sentences in your post without changing the overall meaning. Read the above and ask yourself if it makes any sense whatsoever.

Yep... That's not exactly what I intended to say...


What I meant to say was
"the potential that Portal 2 was developed to appeal to the console crowd that is the real problem."

And then I followed it up with the below:

Zarathustra[H];1037148132 said:
I'm guessing Portal 2 is not like this, as it was primarily developed for the PC and ported to the console, and the principle of the game is very un-console like


Essentially, what I was trying to say (but went a little bit too fast) was that in general when games are designed with the console in mind, the content is developed differently (and IMHO worse). Portal 2 may be an exception to this as it was essentially developed on the PC and ported to the console.
 
I agree with the above statement, I would hate to play any valve games on a console, it feels just as bad as playing a console port on a PC, it just doesn't feel right
 
Zarathustra[H];1037148132 said:
Again - at least to me - the existence of the text string is utterly irrelevant. its the fact that the game was developed to appeal to the console crowd that is the real problem.

I have yet to play Portal 2, so I don't know if this is an issue with it, but in my experience, games targeted at console players are less sophisticated. They have less "brainy" stuff in them. There is less character development and story, and there is less complexity and strategy required. It's usually just a bunch of cheap action thrills, reminiscent of the bad old days of Quake and Doom before Half Life and Deus Ex came along (not to mention Counter-Strike) and changed things up for the better.

To put it in software terms, the User Requirements are different for a game intended for a console than for a PC, and when these user requirements are followed as part of game development, it results in a game that is less fulfilling, less stimulating and less challenging, and aimed at (regardless of what age rating is on the box) the 8 year old boy crowd.

I'm guessing Portal 2 is not like this, as it was primarily developed for the PC and ported to the console, and the principle of the game is very un-console like, but as soon as a development team - early on in game development - starts thinking about even the potential of eventually releasing a game on the console, it has an irreparable impact on the game further down the development pipeline, resulting in a less interesting game. This does not even include the fact that we know the graphics are going to suck compared to what a PC is capable of.
This "dumbing down" of games for consoles is mostly in your head. Streamlining actions so that it can be performed on a controller more easily, yes. You can't have the fast twitch precision of someone whose played hundreds of hours of KB+M FPS's with a controller.

How many buttons do you think most games really use? Not many. The only games that really use many buttons are games like WoW and RTS games. Games are basically the same on consoles or pc's. Get over yourself.

Valve didn't have to change the story or game mechanics because it'd be cross platform. People are very much capable of understanding the story and game mechanics just as well as if they were in front of a PC. There's like 5 buttons for the whole game, primary/secondary fire, directional, crouch, jump and use. Everything else is just extra junk you want tacked on.

Do people have a concept of beating a dead horse anymore? Developers shouldn't shove fluff and crap in to a game to fill it up to 40hrs just so "it's worth your money." Portal introduced you to the game mechanics, let you have some fun with them, gave you a plot twist, done. Short, sweet, effective. No need to be 40 hrs long. There's a sequel now so yes it was plenty long because people loved it and wanted more. A 40 hour Portal would probably leave people tired of it and never wanting to see it again.

Developers need to develop the world around the story, provide just enough content to go through the story with the best pacing possible and finish it. Dragging it out kills it for everyone. The game wasn't dumbed down for consoles (you can't argue it's been the first has been ENORMOUSLY expanded upon), added some features and gave good level designs. Not happy with it? I'd like to see you try it yourself.
 
I think the game is fantastic. The SP plug coop will easily run you 8-9 hours, and that's going at a pretty good clip. If you're not acquainted with the series already or are just a little... slow, it could easily run over 10 hours overall. Then there will achievements you will definitely miss your first time through it all, so tack some time on if you're into replaying for those.

The game functions and plays well. The Source engine may be showing its age a little, but they are in a constant state of overhaul with it. This engine isn't identical to what they used in HL2 by a long shot. One screen saying something about a console doesn't kill the game. People get bent out of shape over the stupidest of things.

10/10 from me.
 
God forbid some people would react to being screwed and mistreated by these con artists.

Nothing lost honestly. There are so many better alternatives to Best Buy these days. Who needs them?
 
Back
Top